## BART Determination Modeling Analysis Tesoro Anacortes Refinery Anacortes, Washington

Prepared for: Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company 10200 West March’s Point Road Anacortes, Washington 98221

February 2008 Project No. 13076.000.0

## BART Determination Modeling Analysis Tesoro Anacortes Refinery Anacortes, Washington

Prepared for: Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company 10200 West March’s Point Road Anacortes, Washington 98221

Prepared by: Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. 3500 188 th Street SW, Suite 600 Lynnwood, Washington 98037 (425) 921-4000

February 2008 Project No. 13076.000.0I:\Project\Tesoro-BART-13076\Anac ortes.000\anacortes.BART.doc i TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................1 2.0 BART DETERMINATION ANALYSIS EMISSION RATES........................................2 2.1 B ASELINE E MISSION R ATES AND S TACK P ARAMETERS ...............................................3 2.2 BART E MISSION R ATES AND S TACK P ARAMETERS ....................................................5 3.0 CALPUFF MODELING PROCEDURES ........................................................................6 3.1 CALPUFF D OMAIN AND R ECEPTORS .........................................................................6 3.3 O ZONE D ATA ..............................................................................................................7 3.4 CALPUFF E MISSION D ATA ........................................................................................7 3.5 CALPOST P OST -P ROCESSING ....................................................................................8 4.0 BASELINE AND BART DETERMINATION MODELING RESULTS........................9 Attachment: Compact Disk Cont aining CALPUFF Modeling FilesTABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

I:\Project\Tesoro-BART-13076\An acortes.000\anacortes.BART.doc ii TABLES Table 2-1 Baseline Emission Rates and Stack Parameters Table 2-2 BART Emission Rates and Stack Parameters Table 3-1 Baseline Case PM 10 Speciation Table 3-2 BART Case PM 10 Speciation Table 3-3 CALPUFF Emission Rates for Baseline Case Table 3-4 CALPUFF Emissi on Rates for BART Case Table 4-1 Number of Days with Predicted Change to the Haze Index Greater than 0.5 Deciviews Table 4-2 Three-Year Predicted 98 th Percentile Change to the Daily Haze Index Table 4-3 Predicted 98 th Percentile Change to the Daily Haze Index by Year Table 4-4 Design Day Extinction Budgets for Baseline Case Table 4-5 Design Day Extinction Budgets for BART Case

FIGURES Figure 3-1 CALMET and CA LPUFF Modeling Domains Figure 3-2 CALPUFF Modeling Doma in with Class I Receptors Figure 3-3 Ozone Stations near Domain Figure 4-1 Time Series of Maximum Daily Delta Haze Index for North Cascades National Park, Baseline versus and BART Cases Figure 4-2 Time Series of Maximum Daily Delta Haze Index for Olympic National Park, Baseline versus and BART Cases Figure 4-3 Baseline Case Maxi mum 24-hour Extinction for 2003-2005 Figure 4-4 BART Case Maximum 24-hour Extinction for 2003-2005 Figure 4-5 Baseline Case 24-hour Delta Haze Index for 12/08/2005 Figure 4-6 BART Case 24-hour Delta Haze Index for 12/08/2005I:\Project\Tesoro-BART-13076\Anac ortes.000\anacortes.BART.doc 1 

### BART DETERMINATION MODELING ANALYSIS Tesoro Anacortes Refinery

Anacortes, Washington

1.0 INTRODUCTION The Washington State Department of Ecology (E cology) issued Admini strative Order No. 5076 requiring that the Tesoro Anacortes Refinery (Tesoro) submit a Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) technical an alysis. Under Ecology and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules and guidance, sources subjec t to BART must conduct modeling analyses to assess the relative merits of di fferent control strategies to im prove visibility in Class I areas. 1 Geomatrix prepared this report to describe th e two (Baseline and BART ) regional air quality modeling simulations we conducted to support a BART determination analysis for Tesoro.
The BART analysis evaluates pot ential technologies for control of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), and PM 10 (particles less than 10 micron s in diameter) emissions from BART-eligible units at Tesoro. Ecology identif ied 14 BART-eligible units at Tesoro. The eligible units are: 12 proce ss heaters, a carbon monoxide (CO) boiler and a flare. The combustion units range in capacity from 16.5 to 322 MMBtu per hour. Eleven of the process heaters burn refinery fuel gas, while Process Heater F-103 burns bot h refinery fuel gas and fuel oil. The CO Boiler (F-304) has historically be en utilized for energy re covery and serves, per Refinery MACT II, to assure the destruction of organic hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from the Cat Cracker. Refinery fuel gas is also burned at F-304 as a supplemental fuel. Exhaust from F-304 is cleaned via flow through a flue ga s scrubbing (FGS) system for removal of PM 10 and SO 2 . Flare X-819 is one component of the refinery’s 3-flare system. In addition to these units, Tesoro’s review of applicable BART regulations and refinery history identified two cooling towers that need to be added to the Ecology list of eligible units for the BART analysis, resulting in a total of 16 BART-eligible units at the refinery. Not included in this count are eleven storage tanks built during the 15-year inte rval; their contributi on to volatile organic compound emissions is less than 250 tons per year.

1 40 CFR Part 51. Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology Determinations; Final Rule. pg 39129. July 6, 2005. Appendix Y, “Guideline for Best Available Retrofit Technology Determination” ( BART Guidelines ) details EPA’s requirements and guidance for states for conducting BART analyses.I:\Project\Tesoro-BART-13076\Anac ortes.000\anacortes.BART.doc 2 Geomatrix applied the CALPUFF m odeling system to assess BART control strategies at Tesoro. The CALPUFF system is recommended by the BART Guidelines 1 for such assessments. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ), Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), and Ecology developed a CALPUFF modeling protocol for BART exemption and BART determination analyses (“ BART Modeling Protocol”)

. 2 The BART Modeling Protocol is designed to be conservative and will likely overstate both the impacts of Tesoro NOx, SO 2 , and PM 10 emissions on regional haze and the likely benefits of emission controls to improve visibility in Class I areas.
The remainder of this report describes a BA RT determination modeling analysis for NOx, SO 2 , and PM 10 emissions from Tesoro BART-eligible units following the BART Modeling Protocol

. We will describe the modeling domain and identify any changes to the protocol used in our study. The report includes a discu ssion of the baseline emission rate s used in simulations for the Tesoro units, how the various BART controls aff ected these emission rates, and the manner that sources were characterized in the simulations. The report concludes with a presentation of the dispersion model results.

2.0 BART DETERMINATION ANALYSIS EMISSION RATES
The BART determination analysis compares the benefits of additional NOx, SO 2 , and PM 10 controls towards reducing regional haze in Class I areas against the results from a simulation of baseline conditions. Simulations of emissions fr om the 16 Tesoro units were performed for the following two cases:

• Baseline – Maximum 24-hour NOx, SO 2 , and PM 10 emissions during 2003-2005

• BART – Same as the Baseline except NOx c ontrols on several proc ess heaters; reduced emissions of SO 2 and PM 10 from Process Heater F-103 assuming the unit burns only refinery fuel gas; and NOx controls on CO Boiler F-104

The BART Modeling Protocol requires that the highest daily NOx, PM 10 , and SO 2 emission rates during 2003-2005 be used for the Baseline case. The period for the baseline emissions matches the timeframe of the meteorological dataset (2003-2005) described in the BART Modeling

2 Modeling Protocol for Washington, Oregon, and Idaho: Protocol for the Application of the CALPUFF Modeling System Pursuant to the Best Availabl e Retrofit Technology (BART) Regulation . Final Version October 11, 2006.I:\Project\Tesoro-BART-13076\Anac ortes.000\anacortes.BART.doc 3 Protocol . The methods used to estimate emission rates for the Baseline and BART cases are described in the remainder of this section.



### 2.1 B ASELINE 

### E MISSION 

### R ATES AND 

### S TACK 

### P ARAMETERS Tesoro provided Geomatrix with the emission ra tes and stack parameters used for the Baseline simulations. Table 2-1 shows the maximum calendar day NOx, SO 2 , and PM 10 emission rates for each eligible unit used in the Baseline simula tions. Emission rates for each unit and pollutant were calculated independently from daily emission estimates during 2003-2005. The daily summaries were ranked and the highest emission ra te for each pollutant and unit selected for the simulations. Further details are provided below.
Process heaters fired only with refinery fuel gas : NOx emission rates for the individual heaters were computed from daily fuel cons umption rates for 2003-2005. Fuel use data were screened for credibility and any determined to be not-credible were excluded. The NOx emission rates for Process Heater F-104 were based upon the emission factor (0.013 lb/MMBtu) established through source testing for the ultra low NOx burners pr eviously instal led at the unit. All other NOx emission rates were based upon EP A emission factors (AP-42) and associated guidance (e.g., adjustment for refine ry fuel gas heat content).

SO 2 emission rates for these process heaters were based on material balance computations using the daily fuel consumption rates and fuel gas quality (hydrogen sulfide (H 2 S) content). Fuel use and fuel quality data were screened for credibi lity and any determined to be not-credible were excluded. It was assumed that one percent of SO 2 from the burning of refinery fuel gas was emitted as sulfuric acid mist and was not included in the BART SO 2 emission rate total.
Particulate matter (PM) emission rates from th e individual heaters were based upon daily fuel consumption rates for 2003-2005. All PM emission rates were calculated with the EPA emission factor (AP-42, Table 1.4-2 - 7.6 lb/M Mscf) for natural gas, adjusted for the refinery fuel gas heat content. All PM emissions from these sources were assumed to be PM 10 .
Process Heater F-103 : This unit burned both refinery fu el gas and refinery fuel oil during 2003-2005. NOx emission rates for both gas and o il combustion were calculated using EPA emission factors (per AP-42). SO 2 emissions were estimated from material balance calculations as discussed above using the sulfur content of the fuels. SO 2 from fuel gas burning was based upon 1 percent of the burned sulfur being emitted in the form of sulfuric acid mist, with SO 2I:\Project\Tesoro-BART-13076\Anac ortes.000\anacortes.BART.doc 4 from fuel oil burning based upon a 3 percent fracti on. Sulfuric acid mist from the two fuels was not included in the SO 2 emission rate totals.
PM emission rates for both refinery fuel ga s and fuel oil combustion were based upon EPA emission factors (per AP-42) and associated guidance. For fuel gas burning, all PM was assumed to be PM 10 . For oil burning, 86 percent of the PM emitted was assumed to be PM 10 (AP-42, Table 1.3-5 for "Industrial Boile rs firing Residual Oil").

Cat Cracker CO Boiler F-304 : F-304 is one of two boilers that have been utilized historically for energy recovery at Tesoro (for generation of steam through the combustion of CO from the Cat Cracker regenerator). The two CO Boilers are regarded as pollution control devises per Petroleum Refinery MACT II for the destruction of organic HAPs in the regenerator flue gas. In November 2005, a FGS system was installed for removal of PM and SO 2 from the flue gases of both CO boilers. The F-304 stack no longer exists and the boiler exhausts thru the FGS stack (V-348). Even though the FGS was not instal led until 2005, per Ecology and EPA guidance the Baseline emission data for F-304 as sumes FGS control of PM and SO 2 during the entire baseline years of 2003 - 2005.
NOx emission rates were based upon numerous periodic NOx source tests conducted during the BART assessment years. Tesoro assumed the measurements from the most recent NOx source test remains representative of actual emissions until superseded by a subsequent source test result.

SO 2 emission rates were based upon: a) periodic SO 2 source tests conducte d during the BART period and b) FGS emissions limited by a SO 2 concentration of 50.0 ppm (max 7-day average – the short term standard in the Cat Cracker permit).
PM emission rates for CO Boiler F-304 were based upon:

• Monthly Cat Cracker catalyst balances with system losses assumed to be uniform over the month

• 57 percent of the Cat Cracker ca talyst losses allocated to F-304, (the balance allocated to the other CO boiler pe r source test results)

• F-304 catalyst emissions exiting the FGS (V -348) are controlled to the MACT II regulatory limit of 1.0 lb/1000 lb coke burnedI:\Project\Tesoro-BART-13076\Anac ortes.000\anacortes.BART.doc 5 • PM emissions were assumed to be 100 percent PM 10

Flare X-819: NOx, SO 2 , and PM emission rates for Flare X-819 were based on the emission rates reported annually to Ecology for the Wa shington Emissions Data Summary (WEDS). Tesoro assumed 80 percent of the emissions repor ted for the refinery’s 3-flare system were emitted by Flare X-819.
Cooling Towers No. 2 and No. 2A: PM emission rates for the cooling towers are based upon EPA’s AP-42 emissions factors and were taken from the annual WEDS reported for Tesoro’s 4- tower system (Nos. 1, 2, 2A & 2b). The fractions emitted from Cooling Towers 2 and 2A were based on their respective portions of the total water circulation for all 4 towers. All cooling tower PM emissions were assumed to be PM 10 .
Stack Parameters. Stack parameters for the Baseline simula tions are shown in Table 2-1. These parameters were calculated for the same days with the highest 24-hour emissions for each pollutant using a combination of source test data, fuel use, and the combustion characteristics of the fuel. The maximum SO 2 , PM 10 , and NOx emission rates usually did not occur on the same days during 2003-2005. The flow rate s and temperatures used in the simulations were calculated from the average of these parameters on the th ree pollutant specific days with the highest emission rates.



### 2.2 BART E MISSION 

### R ATES AND 

### S TACK 

### P ARAMETERS Table 2-2 presents the SO 2 , PM 10 , and NOx emission rates and stack parameters used for simulations of the BART case. The BART case comprises the following changes:

• Low-NOx burners on Process Heaters F-103, F-6650, and F-6651

• Discontinuation of fuel oil bur ning at Process Heater F-103

• Low-NOx burners and Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) on F-304

• Ultra Low-NOx burners on Process Heaters F-6652 and F-6653.

Tesoro calculated emission rate s for the BART case by applying control efficiencies to the maximum daily emission rates used for the Base line simulation. The emission rates for Process Heater F-103 also reflect the a ssumption that this unit would no longer burn refinery fuel oil. For this unit, the entire data development was re peated with fuel gas ra tes and qualities applied to the substitution of fuel oil use on a da y by day basis during 2003-2005. The commitment toI:\Project\Tesoro-BART-13076\Anac ortes.000\anacortes.BART.doc 6 burn refinery fuel gas also affected the stack parameters estimated for this unit. The stack parameters for all other units are the same as in the Baseline case.

3.0 CALPUFF MODELING PROCEDURES Geomatrix applied the CALPUFF modeling system to assess regional haze in Class I areas caused by the SO 2 , NOx, and PM 10 emissions in the Baseline and BART cases described in the previous section. Features of the CALPUFF mo deling system include th e ability to consider: secondary aerosol formation; gaseous and particle deposition; wet and dry deposition processes; complex three-dimensional wind regimes; and the effects of humidity on regional visibility.

Geomatrix used Version 6.112 of the CALPUFF m odeling system for the simulations per the recommendations of the BART Modeling Protocol for Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. 3 The simulations were performed using a 2003-2005 mete orological database prepared by Geomatrix for BART related analyses in the three states. With the exception of the ozone data discussed in Section 3.2, the CALPUFF modeling procedures follow the BART Modeling Protocol

.
3.1 CALPUFF D OMAIN AND R ECEPTORS Figure 3-1 displays the CALPU FF modeling domain within the larger CALMET domain used for BART simulations in Washington, Oregon and Idaho. The CALPUFF computation domain was selected using a circle with a 300 kilome ter (km) radius surrounding Tesoro. All Class I areas located inside of the circle are include d in the BART exempti on modeling. The CALPUFF computation domain includes a buffer of approxi mately 50 km from any Class I area touched by the 300-km circle.
Figure 3-2 shows the CALPUFF domain and the Cla ss I areas considered in the analysis. The eight Class I areas included in the visibility im pact analysis include: Alpine Lakes Wilderness, Glacier Peak Wilderness, Goat Rocks Wilderne ss, Mt. Adams Wilderness, Mt. Rainier National Park, North Cascades National Park, Olympic Na tional Park, and Pasayten Wilderness. At Ecology’s request, the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (CRGNSA) was also included in the visibility impact analysis to provide information to interested parties.

3 Although a later version of the modeling system is now available, Ecology requests Version 6.112 be applied for consistency with previously submitted BART exemption anal yses from other sources. This version of the CALPUFF modeling system is also compatible with a large meteorological database prepared on Ecology’s behalf by Geomatrix for BART simulations.I:\Project\Tesoro-BART-13076\Anac ortes.000\anacortes.BART.doc 7 Receptor locations and elevations for the Class I areas were obtained from a database available from the NPS. 4 Receptor locations and elevations for the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area were provided by Ecology. In addition to the Class I area re ceptors, CALPUFF predictions were also obtained at each gr id point within the 4-km mesh size computational domain. These receptors were used only for diagnostic purposes and to prepare some of the figures in this report.

3.3 O ZONE D ATA The BART Modeling Protocol recommends a constant ozone background concentration of 60 ppb for BART simulations. However, it has become common practice for both BART analyses and New Source Review assessments of Class I areas to use actual ozone observations within Washington, Oregon, and Idaho to charact erize background ozone concentrations. ODEQ prepared such a database that is available fo r BART sources to use in their assessments.
The ODEQ database does not cont ain Canadian monitoring data and the Tesoro domain extends into British Columbia. Geomatrix supplem ented the ODEQ ozone database for 2003-2005 by adding data from seven monitoring stations in southern British Columbia. The ozone station locations near the study domain are shown in Figure 3-3. The database was submitted by Geomatrix and subsequently approved by Ecolog y for BART and New Source Review analyses. 5

3.4 CALPUFF E MISSION D ATA Section 2 of this report pres ented the highest daily NOx, PM 10 , and SO 2 emission rates used for the simulations for the Baseline and BART determ ination cases. Prior to the simulations, PM 10 emissions must be divided into one to six species, including: soot or el emental carbon (EC), fine soil particles (PMF), coarse part icles (PMC), organic carbon (OC), 6 sulfate (SO 4 ), and nitrate (NO 3 ). These species have different scattering e fficiencies that when combined with relative humidity adjustment factors and predicted aerosol concentrations are used to calculate visual extinction.

4 Receptor locations, elevations, an d boundaries for each Class I area ca n be obtained from the NPS at: http://www2.natu re.nps.gov/air/maps/Receptors/index.cfm.

5 Email from Clint Bowman, Ecology to Ken Richmond, Geomatrix, Subj: Addition of BC Ozone Observations to Ozone.dat. December 20, 2007.

6 For the purposes of post-processing by CALPOST, the species OC is labeled SOA (secondary organic aerosol) in the CALPUFF input and output files. CALPOST actually lo oks for “SOA” when calculati ng extinction. We assume all OC emitted forms SOA.I:\Project\Tesoro-BART-13076\Anac ortes.000\anacortes.BART.doc 8 Geomatrix divided Baseline PM 10 emissions from Tesoro accordi ng to the fractions listed in Table 3-1. The PM 2.5 /PM 10 ratios and PM 2.5 fractions were taken from a database provided by Ecology for use in BART modeling analyses. We understand the PM 2.5 fractions in the database are based on profiles recommended by the EPA for the Community Multi-Scale Air Quality (CMAQ) model. 7,8 CMAQ is the preferred regulatory model for PM 2.5 and regional haze simulations. The CMAQ profile database is indexed by Source Classification Code (SCC). The SCC assigned to each BART unit at Tesoro is listed in Table 3-1.

Table 3-2 shows the PM 10 speciation profiles as sumed for the BART case simulations. The profiles are the same as the Baseline case, except for Process Heater F-103. For the Baseline case, the profile reflects oil co mbustion because most of the PM 10 emissions occur when the unit uses this fuel. The refinery fuel gas profile was selected for the BART case.
A summary of the CALPUFF simu lation emission rates for the Baseline and BART cases are shown in Table 3-3 and Table 3-4, respectivel y. The Ecology profile database divides PM 10 emissions into PMC, PMF, EC, OC, ammoni um nitrate, and amm onium sulfate. SO 4 and NO 3 emissions in the CALPUFF input files were calculated based on th e respective ammonium sulfate and ammonium n itrate in the NPS profile after accounting for the change in molecular weight.

3.5 CALPOST P OST -P ROCESSING Geomatrix applied CALPOST to post-process the CALPUFF output file s and calculate the change to the Haze Index (HI) predicted by aeroso ls emitted and formed from the Tesoro units. Background HIs for each Class I area were ca lculated using CALPOST Method 6 and the monthly average relative humidity adjustment f actors and aerosol concentrations listed in Appendix B of the BART Modeling Protocol . The background extinc tion in the protocol represents the hypothetical “natur al” background on the 20 percent be st visibility days of the year.
As recommended by the BART Guidelines , Geomatrix used the 98 th percentile change to the daily Haze Index ( Δ HI), in units of deciviews (dv), as a visibility metric to assess the

7 EPA website containing PM speciation by source cat egories: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/speciation.

8 NPS has developed PM 10 speciation profiles for several of the majo r source categories and these are commonly used to divide PM 10 emissions into species for BART analyses. Ho wever, the NPS profiles do not include process heaters, flares and the other BART units at the Tesoro Anacortes Refinery. The NPS speciation profiles can be found at http://www2.nature.nps. gov/air/permits/ect/index.cfm.I:\Project\Tesoro-BART-13076\Anac ortes.000\anacortes.BART.doc 9 significance of results from the two emission cases. The 98 th percentiles within each Class I area were estimated from the 8 th highest Δ HI of each year and the 22 nd highest in three-years. The time-series lists in the CALPOST output files that show the maximum daily Δ HI within each Class I area were sorted to obtain the required 98 th percentiles.

Geomatrix also summarized the simulations by comparing the number of days where the predicted Δ H exceeds 0.5 dv within each Class I area. Th is is the screening criterion for BART exemption. According to BART Guidelines , a Δ HI of less than 0.5 dv when compared to natural conditions does not cause or contribu te to impairment of visibility.

4.0 BASELINE AND BART DETERMI NATION MODELING RESULTS Table 4-1 displays the number of days in three years predicted by the CALPUFF modeling system where the Δ HI significance criterion of 0.5 dv was exceeded for each area of interest and emission case. The number of days in three year s exceeding the screening criterion range in the Baseline case from 103 days in North Cascades Na tional Park to one day in the CRGNSA. In areas of interest, the mean number of days exceeding 0.5 dv is reduced by about 40 percent overall in the BART case simulation.
Table 4-2 presents the three-year 98 th percentile Δ HI predicted for each Class I area and emission case. This metric is related both to the freque ncy and magnitude of the predicted change to the haze index. The highest potential impacts to regional haze are predicted in Olympic National Park followed by the North Cascades National Pa rk, Glacier Peak Wilderness and Alpine Lakes Wilderness. The mean 98 th percentile Δ HI for all areas of interest under the BART case is about 80 percent of the prediction for Baseline em issions. For Olympic National Park, the 98 th percentile Δ HI predicted by the BART simulation is 73 pe rcent of the same value predicted with Baseline emissions.
The yearly 98 th percentile Δ HIs for each of the three years are shown in Table 4-3. For the Baseline simulations the higher im pacts are generally predicted in 2005 for the northern areas of interest, and in 2003 for the more distant southern areas. This same general trend is followed in the BART case simulations. The annual variability is higher for the more distant areas and for the Olympic National Park. Transport to these areas tends to occur unde r less prevalent flow regimes and the predicted impacts are more depe ndent on yearly differences in the meteorology.I:\Project\Tesoro-BART-13076\Anac ortes.000\anacortes.BART.doc 10 The highest predicted extinctions are predicted in the North Cascades and Olympic National Parks. Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2 show tim e-series of the predicted maximum daily Δ HI in the North Cascades National Park and Olympic Natio nal Park, respectively. For both the Baseline and BART cases, the highest potential changes to the HI occur during the summer for North Cascades National Park, while the highest pred ictions in the Olympic National Park tend to occur during the winter months. Flow towards th e Olympic National Park occurs less often than the prevailing westerly flow aloft, but is asso ciated with cold temper atures during the winter months. The CALPUFF chemistry algorithms fa vor nitrate formation during such wintertime episodes and the highest change s to extinction are predicted in Olympic National Park under such conditions.
Table 4-4 and Table 4-5 list the respective desi gn-day extinction budgets for the Baseline and BART cases by Class I area and period. 9 Typically in the Baseline simulations, about 60 percent of the extinction budgets on the design days ar e caused by sulfate aerosols. The nitrate contributions are also important for some of th e design days, especially in the Olympic National Park. With the reduction in NOx emissions, the BA RT case results are less influenced by nitrate formation and overall sulfates contribute to ove r 70 percent of the design day budgets. The nonhygroscopic components of the PM 10 emissions do not contribute significantly to the overall visibility impairment on the worst days in either the Baseline or BART cases.
Figure 4-3 and Figure 4-4 show the maximum 24- hour extinction coefficients predicted for the Baseline and BART cases, respectively. 10 The highest predictions for both cases are associated with stagnation conditions and are generally confined to lowland areas. The figures depict flow from the north into Puget Sound, southerly flow towards the Straits of Georgia and occasionally up the lower Fraser River Valley. The Class I ar eas in western Washington are in mountainous areas and plumes from Tesoro tend to affect only the lower elevations near the boundaries.
The overall day with th e associated highest 98 th percentile Δ HI is December 8, 2005 for both the Baseline and BART cases. Figure 4-5 and Figure 4-6 display the Δ HI predictions using the background aerosol and humidity co rrections factors for Olympic National Park. This day was characterized by light, but persiste nt winds from the east, transpor ting the Tesoro plumes out the Strait of Juan De Fuca for the entire 24-hour period. Temperatures were just above freezing

9 The “design days” are the da tes with the corresponding 8 th highest Δ HI of each year and the 22 ndhighest in threeyears within each Class I area

10 The figures were prepared from the highest 24-hour predictions excluding background, using the monthly relative humidity correction factors for the Olympic National Park.I:\Project\Tesoro-BART-13076\Anac ortes.000\anacortes.BART.doc 11 promoting the formation of nitrate aerosols. Note, the Tesoro plume touches the northern boundary of Olympic National Park and the predicted Δ HI is not representa tive of the whole Class I area.
Geomatrix prepared the attached compact disk containing the modeling files for both the Baseline and BART cases. In addition to the CALPUFF and CALPOST files, spreadsheets are included that include the extinction budgets for the top 22 days in 2003-2005 and the top 8 days in each of the individual years. The files associ ated with the meteorological database have all ready been provided to regulat ory agencies in the Pacific Northwest, including Ecology.

# TABLESTABLE 2-1 BASELINE EMISSION RATES AND STACK PARAMETERS

Maximum 24-Hour 1 Emission Rates (lb/hr) Stack Parameters 2

Source Name SO 2 NOx PM 10 Ht. (ft) Diam. (ft) Temp. (F) Flow (acfps) Process Heater F-103 (Oil+Ref Gas) 160.5 53.5 9.1 151.0 6.5 605.7 1381.0 Process Heater F-104 39.8 0.8 0.4 150.0 3.0 530.0 285.2 Process Heater F-654 11.7 1.3 0.1 130.0 3.0 681.7 184.5 Process Heater F-6600 56.0 13.1 0.9 150.0 5.0 785.3 868.8 Process Heater F-6601 77.5 8.0 0.6 150.0 3.1 538.3 528.2 Process Heater F-6602 25.6 8.3 0.6 157.0 2.6 772.3 759.6 Process Heater F-6650&51 332.0 101.3 2.8 150.0 7.0 520.0 2112.0 Process Heater F-6652&53 86.1 19.2 1.5 150.0 7.0 526.0 1348.8

Process Heater F-6654 32.2 4.0 0.3 150.0 2.6 533.0 272.7 Process Heater F-6655 15.1 2.9 0.2 90.0 4.5 1001.7 586.7 V-348 FGS (discharge for F-304) 24.9 242.7 14.1 199.0 11.5 155.0 4140.0 Flare X-819 10.0 2.0 0.4 40.0 15.0 1200.0 423.0 Cooling Tower #2 3 0.0 0.0 0.1 49.6 36.0 100.0 28800.0 Cooling Tower #2A 4 0.0 0.0 0.1 41.8 31.1 100.0 17300.0 Total 871.4 457.1 31.2

1. Estimated maximum 24-hour emission rates during 2003-2005 for each pollutant. 2. Average temperature and velocity on the days with the highest SO 2 , NOx, and PM 10 emission rates. 3. Equivalent diameter for four 18 foot cells 4. Equivalent diameter for two 22 foot cellsTABLE 2-2 BART EMISSION RATES AND STACK PARAMETERS

Maximum 24-Hour 1 Emission Rates (lb/hr) Stack Parameters 2

Source Name SO 2 NOx PM 10 Ht. (ft) Diam. (ft) Temp. (F) Flow (acfps) Process Heater F-103 (Ref Gas Only) 152.5 18.2 1.4 151.0 6.5 594.0 1484.7 Process Heater F-104 39.8 0.8 0.4 150.0 3.0 530.0 285.2 Process Heater F-654 11.7 1.3 0.1 130.0 3.0 681.7 184.5 Process Heater F-6600 56.0 13.1 0.9 150.0 5.0 785.3 868.8 Process Heater F-6601 77.5 8.0 0.6 150.0 3.1 538.3 528.2 Process Heater F-6602 25.6 8.3 0.6 157.0 2.6 772.3 759.6 Process Heater F-6650&51 332.0 28.3 2.8 150.0 7.0 520.0 2112.0 Process Heater F-6652&53 86.1 5.2 1.5 150.0 7.0 526.0 1348.8

Process Heater F-6654 32.2 4.0 0.3 150.0 2.6 533.0 272.7 Process Heater F-6655 15.1 2.9 0.2 90.0 4.5 1001.7 586.7 V-348 FGS (discharge for F-304) 24.9 148.0 14.1 199.0 11.5 155.0 4140.0 Flare X-819 10.0 2.0 0.4 40.0 15.0 1200.0 423.0 Cooling Tower #2 3 0.0 0.0 0.1 49.6 36.0 100.0 28800.0 Cooling Tower #2A 4 0.0 0.0 0.1 41.8 31.1 100.0 17300.0 Total 863.4 240.0 23.5
1. SO 2 and PM 10 are the same as the Baselin e except Process Heater F-103 burns refinery gas only. NOx emissions are reduced per the control efficiencies in the BART control technology assessment. 2. Same as the Baseline except Process Heat er F-103 fired by refinery gas only 3. Equivalent diameter for four 18 foot cells 4. Equivalent diameter for two 22 foot cellsTABLE 3-1 BASELINE CASE PM 10 SPECIATION

PM 2.5 Fraction

Source Name SCC 1 PM 2.5 to PM 10 EC PMF NH 4 NO 3 2 OC (NH 4 ) 2 SO 4 3
Process Heater F-103 4 30600103 69.23% 8.69% 25.47% 0.05% 10.75% 55.04% Process Heater F-104 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00% Process Heater F-654 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00% Process Heater F-6600 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00% Process Heater F-6601 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00% Process Heater F-6602 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00% Process Heater F-6650&51 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00% Process Heater F-6652&53 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00%

Process Heater F-6654 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00% Process Heater F-6655 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00%

V-348 FGS (F-304) 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00% Flare X-819 30600904 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% Cooling Tower #2 30600701 100.00% 0.00% 72.02% 0.28% 4.20% 23.50% Cooling Tower #2A 30600701 100.00% 0.00% 72.02% 0.28% 4.20% 23.50%
1. SCC Codes are as follows

a. 30600103: Petroleum Industry Oil-Fired Process Heater b. 30600106: Petroleum Industry Process Gas-Fired Process Heater

c. 30600904: Petroleum Industry Process Gas-Fired Flare d. 30600701: Petroleum Industry Cooling Tower 2. Ammonium nitrate. Nitrate (NO 3 ) is the actual emitted species used by CALPUFF 3. Ammonium sulfate. Sulfate (SO 4 ) is the actual emitted species used by CALPUFF 4. F-103 is fired both by oil and process gas. The oil-fired profile was selected as the majority of the PM 10 emissions occur when the process h eater is fired by this fuel.TABLE 3-2 BART CASE PM 10 SPECIATION

PM 2.5 Fraction

Source Name SCC 1 PM 2.5 to PM 10 EC PMF NH 4 NO 3 2 OC (NH 4 ) 2 SO 4 3
Process Heater F-103 4 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00% Process Heater F-104 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00% Process Heater F-654 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00% Process Heater F-6600 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00% Process Heater F-6601 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00% Process Heater F-6602 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00% Process Heater F-6650-51 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00% Process Heater F-6652-53 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00%

Process Heater F-6654 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00% Process Heater F-6655 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00%

V-348 FGS (F-304) 30600106 98.48% 0.00% 44.05% 0.55% 8.40% 47.00% Flare X-819 30600904 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% Cooling Tower #2 30600701 100.00% 0.00% 72.02% 0.28% 4.20% 23.50% Cooling Tower #2A 30600701 100.00% 0.00% 72.02% 0.28% 4.20% 23.50%
1. SCC Codes are as follows

a. 30600106: Petroleum Industry Process Gas-Fired Process Heater b. 30600904: Petroleum Industry Process Gas-Fired Flare

c. 30600701: Petroleum Industry Cooling Tower 2. Ammonium nitrate. Nitrate (NO3) is the actual emitted species used by CALPUFF 3. Ammonium sulfate. Sulfate (SO4) is the actual emitted species used by CALPUFF 4. Process Heater F-103 is fired only by process gasTABLE 3-3 CALPUFF EMISSION RATES FOR BASELINE CASE Maximum 24-hour Emission Rates (lb/hr)

Source SO 2 SO 4 NOx HNO 3 NO 3 EC SOA (OC) 1 PMC PMF F-103 160.50 2.52 53.50 0 0.00 0.55 0.68 1.60 2.80 F-104 39.80 0.13 0.80 0 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.17 0.01 F-654 11.70 0.03 1.30 0 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.00 F-6600 56.00 0.30 13.10 0 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.39 0.01 F-6601 77.50 0.20 8.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.26 0.01 F-6602 25.60 0.20 8.30 0 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.26 0.01 F-6650-51 332.00 0.94 101.30 0 0.01 0.00 0.23 1.21 0.04 F-6652-53 86.10 0.50 19.20 0 0.01 0.00 0.12 0.65 0.02

F-6654 32.20 0.10 4.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.13 0.00 F-6655 15.10 0.07 2.90 0 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.09 0.00 F-304 24.90 4.75 242.70 0 0.06 0.00 1.17 6.12 0.21 X-819 10.00 0.00 2.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 Cool Twrs 2 0.00 0.03 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.14 0.00
1. OC emissions were actually labeled secondary organi c aerosols (SOA) in the CALPUFF input files to facilitate post-processing with CALPOST. This assumes all OC emitted forms SOA with the same molecular weight. 2. Emissions from the two cooling towers have been combined.TABLE 3-4 CALPUFF EMISSION RATES FOR BART CASE Maximum 24-hour Emission Rates (lb/hr)

Source SO 2 SO 4 NOx HNO 3 NO 3 EC SOA (OC) 1 PMC PMF F-103 152.50 0.48 18.19 0 0.01 0.00 0.12 0.62 0.02 F-104 39.80 0.13 0.80 0 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.17 0.01 F-654 11.70 0.03 1.30 0 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.00 F-6600 56.00 0.30 13.10 0 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.39 0.01 F-6601 77.50 0.20 8.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.26 0.01 F-6602 25.60 0.20 8.30 0 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.26 0.01 F-6650-51 332.00 0.94 28.26 0 0.01 0.00 0.23 1.21 0.04 F-6652-53 86.10 0.50 5.16 0 0.01 0.00 0.12 0.65 0.02

F-6654 32.20 0.10 4.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.13 0.00 F-6655 15.10 0.07 2.90 0 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.09 0.00 F-304 24.90 4.75 148.05 0 0.06 0.00 1.17 6.12 0.21 X-819 10.00 0.00 2.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 Cool Twrs 2 0.00 0.03 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.14 0.00
1. OC emissions were actually labeled secondary organi c aerosols (SOA) in the CALPUFF input files to facilitate post-processing with CALPOST. This assumes all OC emitted forms SOA with the same molecular weight. 2. Emissions from the two cooling towers have been combined.TABLE 4-1 NUMBER OF DAYS WITH PREDICTE D CHANGE TO THE HAZE INDEX GREATER THAN 0.5 DECIVIEWS
Number of Days in 2003-2005 with Delta HI > 0.5 dv

Area of Interest Period Baseline BART Reduction (%) Alpine Lakes Wilderness 2003-2005 76 41 46% Glacier Peak Wilderness 2003-2005 84 50 40% Goat Rocks Wilderness 2003-2005 7 5 29% Mt. Adams Wilderness 2003-2005 6 4 33% Mt. Rainier National Park 2003-2005 36 23 36% N. Cascades National Park 2003-2005 103 61 41%

Olympic National Park 2003-2005 97 67 31%

Pasayten Wilderness 2003-2005 20 8 60% CRGNSA 2003-2005 1 0 100%

Min 1 0 100% Mean 48 29 40% Overall
Max 103 67 35%TABLE 4-2
THREE-YEAR PREDICTED 98 TH PERCENTILE CHANGE TO THE DA ILY HAZE INDEX
98th Percentile Delta HI (dv) 1

Area of Interest Period Baseline BART Reduction (%) Alpine Lakes Wilderness 2003-2005 0.810 0.640 21% Glacier Peak Wilderness 2003-2005 0.847 0.675 20% Goat Rocks Wilderness 2003-2005 0.281 0.234 17% Mt. Adams Wilderness 2003-2005 0.228 0.185 19% Mt. Rainier National Park 2003-2005 0.643 0.542 16% N. Cascades National Park 2003-2005 0.915 0.742 19%

Olympic National Park 2003-2005 1.399 1.025 27%

Pasayten Wilderness 2003-2005 0.497 0.385 23% CRGNSA 2003-2005 0.119 0.105 12%

Min 0.119 0.105 12% Mean 0.638 0.504 21% Overall
Max 1.399 1.025 27% 1. Based on the 22 nd highest on a Class I area basisTABLE 4-3
PREDICTED 98 TH PERCENTILE CHANGE TO THE DAILY HAZE INDEX BY YEAR
98th Percentile Delta HI (dv) 1

Area of Interest Year Baseline BART Reduction (%) 2003 0.917 0.733 20% 2004 0.894 0.661 26% Alpine Lakes Wilderness 2005 0.638 0.510 20% 2003 0.754 0.582 23% 2004 0.839 0.676 19% Glacier Peak Wilderness 2005 0.908 0.679 25% 2003 0.293 0.239 18% 2004 0.284 0.236 17% Goat Rocks Wilderness 2005 0.249 0.202 19% 2003 0.255 0.197 23% 2004 0.231 0.204 12% Mt. Adams Wilderness 2005 0.203 0.162 20% 2003 0.712 0.582 18% 2004 0.650 0.549 16% Mt. Rainier National Park 2005 0.487 0.387 21% 2003 0.927 0.742 20% 2004 0.814 0.641 21% N. Cascades National Park 2005 1.001 0.751 25% 2003 1.286 1.016 21% 2004 1.171 0.805 31% Olympic National Park 2005 1.722 1.248 28% 2003 0.474 0.378 20% 2004 0.488 0.402 18% Pasayten Wilderness 2005 0.497 0.388 22% 2003 0.162 0.133 18% 2004 0.121 0.097 20% CRGNSA 2005 0.073 0.064 12% Min 0.073 0.064 12% Mean 0.631 0.491 22% Overall Max 1.722 1.248 28% 1. Based on the 8 th highest on a Class I area basisTABLE 4-4 DESIGN DAY EXTINCTION BUDGETS FOR BASELINE CASE
98th Percentile Paired By Class I Area Contribution by Species (%) Area of Interest Year Delta HI (dv) Date (NH 4 ) 2 SO 4 NH 4 NO 3 OC EC PMC PMF
2003 0.917 10/4/2003 58.2 41.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.3 2004 0.894 4/1/2004 51.2 48.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 2005 0.638 8/18/2005 69.5 29.5 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.4 Alpine Lakes

Wilderness 2003-2005 0.810 2/19/2005 48.4 50.9 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 2003 0.754 5/25/2003 49.8 49.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.4 2004 0.839 6/29/2004 61.1 37.9 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.4 2005 0.908 9/16/2005 75.6 23.5 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.3 Glacier Peak Wilderness 2003-2005 0.847 7/26/2003 59.1 40.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.3 2003 0.293 8/8/2003 63.6 35.7 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.3 2004 0.284 6/28/2004 61.6 37.6 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.3 2005 0.249 4/26/2005 67.1 32.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 Goat Rocks Wilderness 2003-2005 0.281 5/17/2004 71.8 27.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 2003 0.255 5/7/2003 54.7 44.6 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 2004 0.231 7/28/2004 77.0 22.1 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.4 2005 0.203 7/25/2005 60.7 38.4 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.4 Mt. Adams Wilderness 2003-2005 0.228 12/13/2005 53.0 46.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 2003 0.712 8/31/2003 57.5 41.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.4 2004 0.650 4/6/2004 66.2 33.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 2005 0.487 4/26/2005 58.4 41.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 Mt. Rainier National Park 2003-2005 0.643 8/13/2004 71.8 27.3 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.4 2003 0.927 1/14/2003 62.2 37.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.3 2004 0.814 6/25/2004 72.0 27.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 2005 1.001 6/10/2005 42.1 56.2 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.7 N. Cascades National Park 2003-2005 0.915 7/3/2004 54.5 44.3 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.5 2003 1.286 1/8/2003 56.2 42.5 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.5 2004 1.171 11/11/2004 33.5 65.5 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.4 2005 1.722 12/8/2005 41.5 57.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.4 Olympic National Park 2003-2005 1.399 11/20/2005 33.0 66.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.4 2003 0.474 2/9/2003 62.7 36.8 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 2004 0.488 7/10/2004 54.9 43.9 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.5 2005 0.497 6/26/2005 64.8 34.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 Pasayten Wilderness 2003-2005 0.497 6/26/2005 64.8 34.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 2003 0.162 6/24/2003 66.6 32.5 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.4 2004 0.121 12/1/2004 42.3 57.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 2005 0.073 7/25/2005 60.8 37.7 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.6 CRGNSA
2003-2005 0.119 9/25/2005 54.5 44.6 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.3

Min 0.073 33.0 22.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 Mean 0.633 58.4 40.7 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.3 Overall

Max 1.722 77.0 66.0 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.7TABLE 4-5 DESIGN DAY EXTINCTION BUDGETS FOR BART CASE
98th Percentile Paired By Class I Area Contribution by Species (%) Area of Interest Year Delta HI (dv) Date (NH 4 ) 2 SO 4 NH 4 NO 3 OC EC PMC PMF
2003 0.733 7/22/2003 82.9 16.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 2004 0.661 3/12/2004 56.4 42.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 2005 0.510 8/2/2005 68.1 30.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 Alpine Lakes

Wilderness 2003-2005 0.640 8/2/2003 77.0 22.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 2003 0.582 7/6/2003 73.5 25.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 2004 0.676 6/29/2004 74.7 24.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 2005 0.679 12/13/2005 71.3 28.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 Glacier Peak Wilderness 2003-2005 0.675 7/26/2003 73.2 26.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 2003 0.239 8/8/2003 76.6 22.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 2004 0.236 4/4/2004 76.4 23.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 2005 0.202 5/24/2005 71.1 28.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 Goat Rocks Wilderness 2003-2005 0.234 7/22/2003 87.8 11.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 2003 0.197 5/7/2003 69.4 30.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 2004 0.204 7/28/2004 86.1 13.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 2005 0.162 7/25/2005 74.4 24.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 Mt. Adams Wilderness 2003-2005 0.185 9/27/2005 68.4 31.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 2003 0.582 10/27/2003 78.4 21.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 2004 0.549 8/13/2004 82.7 16.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 2005 0.387 4/26/2005 72.7 26.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 Mt. Rainier National Park 2003-2005 0.542 4/6/2004 78.7 21.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 2003 0.742 6/23/2003 66.9 31.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 2004 0.641 4/24/2004 63.3 35.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 2005 0.751 4/26/2005 79.0 20.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 N. Cascades National Park 2003-2005 0.742 6/23/2003 66.9 31.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 2003 1.016 1/8/2003 69.3 29.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 2004 0.805 4/2/2004 54.1 45.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 2005 1.248 12/8/2005 55.8 43.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 Olympic National Park 2003-2005 1.025 11/5/2004 66.1 33.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 2003 0.378 6/23/2003 65.7 33.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 2004 0.402 8/16/2004 81.3 18.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 2005 0.388 4/9/2005 61.6 37.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 Pasayten Wilderness 2003-2005 0.385 2/9/2003 76.0 23.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 2003 0.133 10/14/2003 67.6 31.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 2004 0.097 7/28/2004 85.0 14.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 2005 0.064 7/14/2005 88.4 10.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 CRGNSA
2003-2005 0.105 7/30/2003 91.1 7.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6

Min 0.064 54.1 7.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 Mean 0.494 73.3 26.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 Overall

Max 1.248 91.1 45.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6

# FIGURESFigure 3-1 Project No. 13076.000 CALMET AND CALPUFF MODELING DOMAINS Tesoro Refinery BART Determination Modeling Anacortes, Washington -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 East - West LCC (km) -900 -800 -700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100

0 100 200 300North - South LCC (km) Tesoro

300 km from Tesoro CALPUFF Computation DomainFigure 3-2 Project No. 13076.00.0 CALPUFF MODELING DOMAIN WITH CLASS I RECEPTORS Tesoro Refinery BART Determination Modeling Anacortes, Washington -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 East - West LCC (km) -400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50

0 50 100North - South LCC (km)Figure 3-3 Project No. 13076.000.0 OZONE STATIONS NEAR DOMAIN Tesoro Refinery BART Determination Modeling Anacortes, Washington -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 East - West LCC (km) -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100

0 100 200 300North - South LCC (km)Figure4-1Project No.13076.000TIME SERIES OF MAXIMUM DAILY DELTA HAZE INDEX FOR NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARKBASELINE VERSUS BART CASESTesoro Refinery BART Determination ModelingAnacortes, Washington00.511.52 Delta HI (deciview)BaselineBART1 180 3651 180 3651 180 366Julian Day 2003Julian Day 2004Julian Day 2005Figure4-2Project No.13076.000TIME SERIES OF MAXIMUM DAILY DELTA HAZE INDEX FOR OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARKBASELINE VERSUS BART CASESTesoro Refinery BART Determination ModelingAnacortes, Washington00.511.522.533.5 Delta HI (deciview)BaselineBART1 180 3651 180 3651 180 366Julian Day 2003Julian Day 2004Julian Day 2005Figure 4-3 Project No. 13076.000 BASELINE CASE MAXIMUM 24-HOUR EXTINCTION (1/MM) 2003-2005 Tesoro Refinery BART Determination Modeling Anacortes, Washington -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 East - West LCC (km) -400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50

0 50 100North - South LCC (km)Figure 4-4 Project No. 13076.000.0 BART CASE MAXIMUM 24-HOUR EXTINCTION (1/MM) 2003-2005 Tesoro Refinery BART Determination Modeling Anacortes, Washington -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 East - West LCC (km) -400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50

0 50 100North - South LCC (km)Figure 4-5 Project No. 13076.000.0 BASELINE CASE 24-HOUR DELTA HI (DV) FOR 12/08/2005 Tesoro Refinery BART Determination Modeling Anacortes, Washington -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 East - West LCC (km) -400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50

0 50 100North - South LCC (km)Figure 4-6 Project No. 13076.000.0 BART CASE 24-HOUR DELTA HI (DV) FOR 12/08/2005 Tesoro Refinery BART Determination Modeling Anacortes, Washington -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 East - West LCC (km) -400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50

0 50 100North - South LCC (km)